Copying posts from Message Boards in the Press...

[Tooting Gull]

Sheff Wed are trying to sue some of their fans for what is posted on a fans forum.

That is different to the point being raised here though, Yorkie. What you're talking about is libel (or not).

This is copyright, and/or online plagiarism. Is it breach of copyright for a submission on a message board to be used elsewhere? Personally, I think you'd struggle to prove it was.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It isn't a breach of copyright for any media outlet to quote from another, in order to comment on what is being said publicly.

If I said "Dick Knight has said that the Albion's Football in the Community Project is huge", he couldn't complain that I was thieving his words - even if I went on to comment that I thought it was tiny, compared with what it will be once Falmer is built.

As an NSC User, I'm not complaining that the Argus and the BBC seem to think "we" are the "voice of Albion fans". I'd disagree with them if that was their view. But they're entitled to think that, if they want to. The reality is that Albion fans speak with many voices, as, indeed, do NSC Users.

 

[tedebear]

There has been a huge turnaround in the "other" site which this issue has arisen in. It appears that the issue of being plagarised has been bypassed in favour of correcting the issue at the heart of the matter! A good thing!!

The heart of the matter surrounds the winning cars in the St Marys Trophy at the Goodwood Revival last month. As is the norm the winning cars go into the scrutineers bay at the conclusion of the race. Two cars out of the first three were removed (although not against the rules infers guilt) from the scrutineers bay after the mechanics refused to have their engines checked for capacity. Rumour has it they had near 7 litre engines when they should by FIA rules be only running 4 litres, hence their stonking speed and lap times. The thread surrounding this controversy has been reported as "editors comment" in a well known motorsport magazine.

Anyhow the legal side of the issue which was threatened seems to have subsided - or alternatively a retraction will be printed next month! We wait

 

[e77]

There has been a huge turnaround in the "other" site which this issue has arisen in. It appears that the issue of being plagarised has been bypassed in favour of correcting the issue at the heart of the matter! A good thing!!

The heart of the matter surrounds the winning cars in the St Marys Trophy at the Goodwood Revival last month. As is the norm the winning cars go into the scrutineers bay at the conclusion of the race. Two cars out of the first three were removed (although not against the rules infers guilt) from the scrutineers bay after the mechanics refused to have their engines checked for capacity. Rumour has it they had near 7 litre engines when they should by FIA rules be only running 4 litres, hence their stonking speed and lap times. The thread surrounding this controversy has been reported as "editors comment" in a well known motorsport magazine.

Anyhow the legal side of the issue which was threatened seems to have subsided - or alternatively a retraction will be printed next month! We wait

I am not much of a motor racing expert but why enter a car you know would fail the scrutineers?

 

[tedebear]

I am not much of a motor racing expert but why enter a car you know would fail the scrutineers?

If you win and get away with it - its worth a lot of money for your business in Historic Racing to say you are a Goodwood winner - can add as much as £10 to the value of your car too!

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

It is a public forum and the views are the views of the posters. If the forun holders (NSC) had some sort of ownership of the postings then surely they'd also be responsible for things posted and thus open to legal actions, remember Gulls Eye?

 

[tedebear]

If you win and get away with it - its worth a lot of money for your business in Historic Racing to say you are a Goodwood winner - can add as much as £10 to the value of your car too!

OOPS meant £10k!!

 

[Lush]

It is a public forum and the views are the views of the posters. If the forun holders (NSC) had some sort of ownership of the postings then surely they'd also be responsible for things posted and thus open to legal actions, remember Gulls Eye?

The other problem is that they often aren't even necessarily the real views of the posters. People say and post things on the internet that they wouldn't dream of saying or doing in "real life". Yet there it is in black and white and it can often be attributed to a "real life" person, if someone wants to use it in court.